Harris v. City of Portland ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION TERA HARRIS, No. 3:18-cv-01902-SB Plaintiff, ORDER v. SCOTT P. BOUGHTON, TRAVIS W. LAW, DEREK L. CARMAN, CITY OF PORTLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation [20] on August 23, 2019, in which she recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [19] with prejudice. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and concludes that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation [20]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [19] is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this \say of O ot , 2019. Manco umaiadn, MARCO A. HERNANDEZ United States District Judge 2 - ORDER